Month: July 2017

The kerfuffle over Andrew Strain’s recent First Things website article criticizing the idea of free markets is starting to die down despite the Acton Institute’s Joe Carter having a panic attack over the specter of socialism haunting ostensibly conservative Christian publications. Carter’s rebuke to Strain (and others) is nothing more than the same old, same old. Almost all forms of public regulation, by Carter’s lights, constitutes socialism. It’s not entirely clear where Carter draws the line, or if there is room in Carter’s liberal-economic outlook for measures like antitrust law, environmental protections, and labor standards. What rings strange in Carter’s ill-conceived attack is his insistence that Strain himself is a socialist for no other reason than the latter suggested that Pope Pius XI, author of the towering social encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, offers up alternatives to free-market capitalism. In a brief Twitter exchange with Carter, he made it known that Strain might consider reading later papal documents which condemn socialism. Carter is apparently ignorant of the fact that Pius XI, like his predecessors, condemned socialism outright and no Catholic thinker worth his salt has ever suspected Pius of harboring crypto-socialist ideas.

The real problem here is that Carter, like so many “Actonites,” subscribes to a Manichean worldview with the capitalists on one side (“Children of Light”) and the socialists (or communists) on the other (“Children of Darkness”). There can be no “third way,” nor apparently sensible regulation of the market. And by “sensible regulation” I mean nothing more than the sort proposed by some of Carter’s fellow, but far more learned, economic liberals. Consider, for instance, law professor Richard Epstein’s more balanced take on the market. While Epstein is a strong advocate for private law doing the heavy lifting of protecting rights and redressing wrongs, he has defended the use of antitrust law to prevent monopolization and other restraints on trade while leaving room open for some public regulation to address collective action problems and the tragedy of the commons. Although I remains skeptical of many of Epstein’s claims, not to mention his reliance on neoclassical economics, his consequentialist approach treats the market as an effective means of maximizing social welfare while not ignoring the market’s imperfections.

Beyond this, the crucial issue for Strain and other faithful Catholics (which excludes Carter) is what does the Church teach? For well more than a century, the Church’s social magisterium has set forth clear principles for the proper economic ordering of society. Although no pontiff has ever claimed to provide a sure-fire roadmap for how particular economies are organized, none have dismissed the fact that a just economy demands just wages for workers; social, moral, and religious protections; solidarity; and the application of the principle of subsidiarity. Although these principles are best upheld at the local level through intermediary institutions, some form of public regulation is expressly contemplated by the Church’s magisterium. Moreover, the Church has never been blind to the need for social safety nets for the least well off in society and that moderate taxation, rather than being a form of theft, is indispensable for maintaining public order and justice.

Granted, some Catholics in recent years have jumped the rails a bit on these measures, believing—wrongly—that what they find in the Church’s social magisterium is a mandate for highly centralized regulatory schemas, entitlements, and massive wealth transfers. Their errors, however, do not justify scrapping Catholic social teaching as a whole, nor setting aside what great pontiffs like Leo XIII, St. Pius X, and Pius XI taught. Sure, Pope Francis, with his penchant for off-the-cuff remarks and imprecise rhetoric, may have temporarily handed pro-socialist Catholics an apparent justification for their beliefs, but at the end of the day the timeless social principles of the Church—principles which cannot be squared with true socialism—remain to guide us up to the present day.

Over at First Things, my friend Andrew Strain has a fresh piece up, “Free Markets and Unicorns.” Strain is skeptical of the neoliberal narrative that “the market is a self-regulating mechanism sufficient unto itself, a system naturally suited to achieve the best outcomes overall.” In other words, free markets, according to some contemporary strands of economic ideology, maximize social welfare while public regulation, what with its risk of being captured by special interests, impedes such gains. As Strain, leaning on David Ciepley, points out, the market as we see it today relies on both private initiative and public cooperation with those initiatives. For instance, corporations are, today, considered a “natural” part of the market, though their makeup, character, and liability for potential harms they may cause are calibrated by public law. The entire post is well worth reading.

While I agree with Strain’s position, I can already see the rebuttals on the horizon. Those who lean libertarian will argue that it is unnecessary for there to be public regulation of corporations; corporations should always be the outcome of private initiative secured by contract. To the extent corporations do wrong, those wrongs can and ought to be addressed by private law, specifically tort law or, in certain instances, contract law. For example, a corporation that pollutes a river which causes X amount of damage to homes and farms down that river can be held accountable under a theory of strict liability; if they break it, they buy it. Similarly, if a corporation defrauds shareholders or fails to deliver on a good or service it has contractually obligated itself to, then the terms of the respective contract will dictate the damages to be awarded.

This is not a new position. In one of his early books, Simple Rules for a Complex World, Richard Epstein—arguably the premiere libertarian legal theorist of the last 50 years—sought to dispose of the complex web of public regulatory measures in favor of a comparatively simpler system of private law governed by tort, contract, and property. Whether they know it or not, many libertarians (and neoliberals) hold fast to Epstein’s thesis when pushing back against public regulation; they’re just not as articulate as Epstein is. What Epstein and his epigones miss, however, is that a system of private law, particularly in common-law countries, is not neutral. It is informed by decades, if not centuries, of assumptions and ideologies that tend to shift with the development (or distortion) of social norms. For Epstein’s libertarian schema of private law to work, the freedom of contract must be nearly absolute (coercion and fraud don’t count), as are property rights. But why make either absolute? A pre-legal argument has to be constructed for that, and too often the argument is assumed rather than made.

None of this detracts from Strain’s position, of course. Perhaps in a subsequent piece he will meet these and other lines of criticism that are sure to come on the heels of his piece. Make no mistake about it. Despite the radical shifts in our understanding of the origins of “economic science,” the unpredictability and volatility of global markets, radical shifts in attitude around the world toward capitalism, and the unnerving realization that neoliberalism has failed to unite the world and cease conflict through the establishment of an international marketplace fueled by free trade, neoliberal ideology, in both its moderate and radical forms, remains alive and well.

Over the past six years, I must say that one of the most annoying aspects of contemporary Catholic culture, at least as I see it in the United States among those 10 years north or south of my age (37), is this sense that in order to be a “true Catholic gentleman” or, worse, a “true Catholic (pseudo-)intellectual” one must posture with cigars, bourbon, and craft beers (preferably of the Quadruple Hops Belgian Style Cherry Blended Whiskey Barrel Aged IPA variety). In fact, it’s not just so much posturing as it is consuming all of these things in so gluttonous a manner as to make Chesterton blush. And truth in point, it is probably Chesterton and Belloc—or certain conceptions surrounding these two towering figures of British Catholicism—that leads unsuspecting young men down a false pathway of sophistication where the spirit to be consumed is more crucial than the point of theology to be discussed. Moreover, let’s be honest. Most of those who claim to have some professional-academic knowledge of theology or philosophy typically lie about what they’ve read and understood; the booze just makes it easier for them to fib while deadening the senses of their fellow man to call them out on it. The end result is not just a deadening of the senses, but a descent into parody—one which Catholics should be thankful that no one outside the fold notices or apparently cares.

This is not to say that there is anything wrong with indulging a bit here and there. As one priest in Chicago told me, the virtue of being Catholic is that you can drink, smoke, spit, swear, and chew—all in moderation. Moderation, unfortunately, seems to be in short supply these days judging by some of the spectacles I have witnessed and the innumerable others I have heard about. I think perhaps this is less a problem among previous generations who both understood the proper limits of consumption and did so because they properly understood the Catholic tradition which, in merry times, they come together to discuss. I consider it a privilege to have spent time among such men; it’s a sobering contrast to the obnoxious bantering of millennials and gen X’rs fueled by the latest concoction emanating from a microbrewery which, if successful, will soon become another subsidiary of Anheuser-Busch. (As an aside, it should be known that on the hierarchy of things in life one is allowed to be snobbish about (e.g. classical music, wine, and art), microbrew snobbery is 19 rungs down the ladder from pro-wrestling snobbery.)

Some may say it is unfair for me to make mention of this given my own restraints, but I disagree. Had I not, for a time, bought into the idea that alcohol—and lots of it—was part of contemporary Catholic culture (just as it is indeed very much part of contemporary Eastern Orthodox culture), I might have faced up to my problem a lot sooner, or at least not exacerbated it as the years went by. Granted, much of that was my fault; I am a grownup and I realize full well that many people drink regularly without being ensnared by fermented beverages. Another Chicago priest, this one a member of the Antiochican Archdiocese, remarked that if you can’t give up drinking during the fasting seasons of the Byzantine Rite (Advent, Great Lent, Apostle’s Fast, etc.), then you have a problem. I wonder: how many young Catholics, Latins and Easterners alike, could hold themselves to such a standard? Would they even want to try? And if they failed, would they admit defeat and seek help, both spiritually in the confessional and naturally through programs such as Alcoholics Anonymous or individual counseling?

I have never been shy about the fact that I am a fan of the sport of professional wrestling and have been for nearly three decades. I have seen plenty of wrestlers come and go over the years, including the companies they worked for. I was there on the front lines watching during the so-called “Monday Night Wars” when Ted Turner’s World Championship Wrestling (WCW) almost succeeded in running Vince McMahon’s World Wrestling Federation (now World Wrestling Entertainment or WWE) into the ground. The business in America had never been hotter, with performers like Stone Cold Steve Austin, The Rock, Mick Foley, and Goldberg eventually becoming household names. Veterans also carried the business at that time, including Hulk Hogan, Randy Savage, Kevin Nash, and Scott Hall, though they were also assisted by one of the greatest pools of international talent ever assembled. Though it took WWE a few years to get on board, WCW’s supporting cast was comprised of individuals like Rey Mysterio Jr. who, arguably, revolutionized the way fans and promoters thought about athleticism and size in the ring. Hungry young talent like Chris Jericho got their start filling out the middle of the card and men like Eddie Guerrero, whose charisma matched his pure in-ring talent, set the stage for later success. And then there was Chris Benoit, dubbed the “Rabid Wolverine,” who was arguably the greatest professional wrestler of his generation—a position he would hold until 10 years ago when he murdered his wife and son before killing himself.

For years, numerous friends, girlfriends, and acquaintances have questioned my love of pro-wrestling and the lengths I would go to see it. Before the age of ready-at-hand streaming services, the only way I could consume wrestling outside of the major companies on cable was to use the two 4-head VCRs I purchased to record and copy American graps to trade with anonymous names on the Internet. During my high school and college years, I acquired a massive library of VHS tapes packed with wrestling from Mexico, Japan, and Europe, not to mention historic bouts from the days when American wrestling was regional and not broadcasted nationally. The video quality ranged from “alright” (at best) to “atrocious,” but I didn’t care. Mitsuharu Misawa had a Match of the Year bout with Toshiaki Kawada in Tokyo and I was going to see it—even if took me four months to get the tape.

When people shook their heads at me, I could always go to my tapes and pull out 3-4 with matches that I knew would change their minds, no matter how visceral their contempt for wrestling was. Invariably, one of those matches would feature Benoit, a performer who never let his stature get in the way of making you believe that he could tear through any opponent under all circumstances. Whether matched up with a junior heavyweight in Japan, a technical master from Europe, or a brawler in America, Benoit could effortlessly match styles. While some wrestlers take it down a few notches when performing in front of small crowds or with the TV cameras off, Benoit never could. His passion was for professional wrestling and he never let anyone in the audience forget it. Sometimes that meant demonstrating his cardio conditioning by doing 15 minute sprints in the ring; at other times it meant showing off his technical prowess, floating between holds and lockups to remind the audience of pro-wrestling’s catch-as-catch can roots. But when he felt compelled, giving the audience a show meant diving head first off the top rope night after night; taking unprotected chair shots to the front and back of the head; and never letting a concussion get in the way of a good match.

When news broke of what Benoit had done, speculation immediately began that the cause of his actions was roid rage. It was no secret to even non-fans of the sport that wrestlers often looked to a needle to assist them in the gym. Since the 1980s in particular and the ascendency of guys like Hogan and the late Ultimate Warrior, image was essential to success; being larger than life was just part of the job. Benoit, who would have a hard time cresting 200lbs. on his own, blew up his physique in order to better fit in once he started wrestling in the United States. And so it was natural for people to conclude that his “routine” got the best of him. It made for the best story, namely that wrestling is full of roided-up pseudo-athletes whose work glorified violence, including violence against women. The Benoit tragedy was a perfect example of life imitating art; the low-brow “male soap opera” of wrestling had become all too real. Only that wasn’t the full story. An autopsy on Benoit proved that he had the brain of an octogenarian with dementia; years of head trauma had taken its toll. While it is impossible to know for sure why Benoit did what he did or excuse his actions by merely pointing to autopsy results, Benoit’s actions spurred WWE and other wrestling companies into being more proactive about preventing concussions and medically screening concussed performers before sending them back into the ring. The reforms have been far from perfect, but the situation today is far better than it was a decade ago.

Following his death, WWE effectively scrubbed Benoit from history, removing his name from their website and broadcasts; pulling all of his merchandise off the shelves; and never releasing any footage of him on DVD. With the advent of the WWE Network in 2014—the company’s 24-hour streaming service and video archive—Benoit’s matches become accessible again, though it is still impossible to track them down through the Network’s search engine; you have to know what you’re looking for to find him.

Part of me wishes I could say I never went back to watch another Benoit match, but that would be a lie. While I don’t remember the first time I watched Benoit wrestle again, I doubt I waited that long. For me, between the ropes, Benoit was as good as there has ever been. One of my happiest moments as a wrestling fan took place at WrestleMania XX in 2004 when he stood in the middle of the ring, embraced by his real-life friend Eddie Guerrero, holding the WWE World Championship. It was the culmination of one of the most brilliant wrestling careers in history, one that spanned the globe and left behind a treasury of some of the greatest bouts ever to take place in the squared circle. And then, three years later, Benoit, his wife, and his young son were all dead. All of the classic matches in the world against the likes of Jushin Liger, The Great Sasuke, Kurt Angle, Shawn Michaels, etc. cannot make up for Benoit’s horrible actions. And yet to deny his role in shaping a generation’s understanding of what great wrestling is cannot be overlooked either. Indeed, it is impossible to imagine any up-and-coming grappler ever achieving any level of excellence without spending hours studying Benoit’s matches. His intensity, psychology, and raw athleticism, when packaged together, were unparalleled. They may never be matched again.

Today, when my sons want to watch some great wrestling, I don’t have to rummage through piles of tapes in boxes; everything I want is just a few clicks away. I have shown them some of the premier matches in history, but not a single one has included Chris Benoit. One day, if their interest in the sport abides, I will have to tell them about Benoit and what he did—both in and outside of the ring. However, once again I cannot lie. When I am alone and need a refresher on what greatness in pro-wrestling is, the easiest choice I can make is to turn on a Benoit bout, suspend disbelief, and get lost in the artistry of it all.

Too much perhaps is being made of a recent article appearing in Civiltà Cattolica by Fr. Antonio Spadaro and Argentine Presbyterian Pastor Marcelo Figueroa entitled “Evangelical Fundamentalism and Catholic Integralism in the USA: A Surprising Ecumenism.” (A copy of the piece is archived at Rorate Caeli.) That it would call to the carpet certain aspects of American political life and culture, including the current presidential administration, is far less troubling than the manner in which it (unintentionally?) distorts Catholic integralism.

For instance, the article states that “[b]oth Evangelical and Catholic Integralists condemn traditional ecumenism and yet promote an ecumenism of conflict that unites them in the nostalgic dream of a theocratic type of state.” While there are certainly some conservative and traditional Catholics who likely endorse this “ecumenist of conflict,” anyone familiar with authentic integralist writings will know that intregalists would find the idea of a generic “theocratic type of state” that embraces the interests of both fundamentalist Protestants and the Catholic Church nauseating. Integralism, at its core, concerns the relationship between the spiritual and the temporal, that is, the Church and state. It is only the proper relationship of the state to the one Church of Christ, which is the Catholic Church, which integralism promotes; the relationship between the state and some watered-down, ecumenically constructed, and generic “Christianity” is not part of the integralist project.

It is doubtful the authors of the piece set out with any intention to be precise in its limited discussion of integralism. Before the article ends, integralism has been conflated with fundamentalism even though nothing could be further from the truth. Fundamentalism, at its core, is fideistic, antirational, and needlessly reactionary. Integralism, by contrast, embraces the whole of the Western intellectual tradition, from Athens to Jerusalem. It drinks deeply from the well of reason in the service of upholding the truth of revelation. Integralism, when it is authentically Catholic, does not call for Christians to flee the world, but to transform it—to restore all things in Christ.

Granted, there are certainly socio-political matters which are of grave concern to not only integralists, but all Christians of good will. For instance, the reemergence of militant Islam, both in the Middle East and the West, threatens the very survival of Christianity. Secular-liberal culture, with its emphasis on individualism, liberty, and relativism, threatens the common good. This only makes sense since it was not long ago that Catholics and most Protestants shared a common moral vocabulary despite the grave theological and philosophical differences which divided them. And though Protestantism must carry the blame for helping to usher in some of the worst aspects of modernity, it cannot be denied that some today still hold true to the precepts of the Decalogue and the message of the Gospel.

In the coming years it will be necessary for integralists to present a stronger, more united front against its uncultured despisers. Unsophisticated dismissals such as the one presented by Spadaro and Figueroa are easily refuted. More pressing perhaps are the well-intentioned, though often misinformed, critiques emanating from Catholics who, despite rejecting liberalism, still remain beholden to both liberal categories of thought and an unfortunate desire to “fit in” with certain secular academic currents that are still perceived as “edgy” and “hip” by a typically youthful segment of the Catholic population. The challenge is not so much to defeat them in a battle of ideas so much as to convert them to the cause of upholding the social rights of Christ the King.

There is a moment when Jane, having been rejected by her lover Neil in Terrence Malick’s To the Wonder, declares with equal parts scorn and sorrow, “What we had you turned it into nothing.” For while Jane, an apparent Christian, makes clear that she wants her love with Neil to be elevated to something higher, the latter settles for carnality before turning his affection back towards Marina, a Frenchwoman we see Neil spending time with abroad at the beginning of the movie. Although the fruits and end of Neil and Marina’s relationship remains somewhat ambiguous by the film’s end, Jane’s devastation over having given her body to a man who has no interest in her soul is made painfully apparent.

Were Jane to recount her story to many “good” (conservative) Christians, she would likely be met with chastisement. How could she be so foolish to give of herself physically outside of the bonds of matrimony? Should she not have known that Neil, who professes nary a Christian sentiment in and can be seen reading Heidegger’s Being and Time at one point, would eventually part once he has tasted of the forbidden fruit? Without trivializing Jane’s error, let me suggest that Christians, including Catholics, who take these and similar postures often do so in splendid isolation of the manner in which misplaced hope can drive persons to make decisions which look not only deeply foolish in hindsight, but are objectively deeply sinful. The sense which some hold is that a sin on the frontend will lead to a positive payoff on the backend. Maybe this is why I am no longer surprised when I meet conservative-to-traditional Catholic and Orthodox couples who slept with each other before marriage; there remains an underdeveloped but no less present belief that the ends justifies the means.

Of course, you cannot say such things in the polite company of “official” channels of advice to couples regarding dating, engagement, and matrimony. The entire industry that has popped up around these topics, including bedroom matters post-marriage, depends upon a highly naïve understanding of how human beings think and behave, not just in these times, but in centuries past. Although the costs of out-of-wedlock sexual intercourse were much higher before the advent of modern contraception and more relaxed social standards regarding sexuality in general, it is difficult to maintain that these costs alone ever nullified desire. And while there have always been licentious individuals of both sexes roaming about, there is a lacuna in our understanding of relationships and sexuality if we are to simply hold that people engage in impermissible sexual behavior merely because they are endowed with red hot sin-loving souls. There is a deeper distortion at work, one that cannot be cured with Jane Austen novels and flowery rhetoric about the power of chastity.

Malick, I suspect, understands this to a better extent more than professional moralists. Without having recourse to the blunt instruments of shame and indignation, he portrays, to the best of his cinematic powers, the radiance and beauty of love, even when it is removed from its proper context. He aims not to punish the participants from the outside, but rather allow their own torments to enlighten them. Jane is never singled-out for chastisement by a cleric, a friend, or future lover; it is the realization that what she had invested could never be returned which shatters her. As for Neil, although he remains imperviousness to the damaging consequences of his actions, ultimately they lead to a life of emptiness, hollowed out of the promise of fulfillment which is offered up during the early portions of To the Wonder.

While he barely shares any screen time with Neil and has but a passing connection to Neil’s romantic life, the character of Fr. Quintana is presented as a sharp contrast to Neil. Originally devoid of purpose and apparently on the brink of losing his faith, Quintana does not pull back into himself but rather opens himself up to the world around him, to the suffering souls also in search of love, and eventually, through his unselfish work, is given the grace to love again, not merely himself, but God and the world around him. Quintana’s love is elevated not through a sacramental union with another, but being placed in the service of a higher end. It is not his self-satisfaction which he seeks, but rather to serve as an instrument of mercy for those around him. Instead of collapsing into his own isolation and loneliness as does Neil, he allows himself to be renewed by a elevated love.

Wading into the politics of the Church of Rome doesn’t interest me these days even if my “Uniate” self must recognize that decisions emanating from the Vatican will invariably have ripple effects felt by Greco-Catholics as well. The appointment of Archbishop Luis Ladaria Ferrer to head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) leaves me underwhelmed, not because he’s likely to take any revolutionary action, but because he will do nothing to ameliorate the ongoing doctrinal confusion in the Church. And for that reason (among others), I find Andrew Haines’s enthusiasm for the appointment over at Ethika Politika misplaced. While I understand why Haines might be happy that his former professor is moving up in the world, statements such as the following are both perplexing and troubling.

No matter the reaction we see, it’s important to remember that all members of the Roman Curia serve at the pope’s pleasure. He is not bound in justice to renew any of their terms. Any ire or upset directed at the Holy Father is unfounded in this regard.

Of course Pope Francis is not “bound in justice” to do much of anything vis-à-vis the Roman Curia, but just because he can institute a removal-and-replacement for this-or-that position doesn’t mean he should. Francis, for example, could place a hardcore Latin chauvinist at the head of the Congregation for Oriental Churches, one who has zero respect for the rites, theology, and spirituality of the Eastern churches, but should he (or any pope for that matter)? Would Haines wag his finger at Eastern Catholics who openly criticize such an appointment or would he tell them to be silent, fall in line, and accept such a disastrous appointment with a smile? If so, that smacks of some of the worst neo-ultramontanism available today.

My suspicion is that Haines would not go that far if the appointment concerned anything other than the head of the CDF. Haines, an open supporter of Amoris Laetitia (“watershed in the life of the Church”) and Francis’s “broad and substantial capacity for spiritual discernment,” knows that Ladaria will stay the course of this pontificate: more discernment, less doctrine. Clearly this worries conservative and traditional Catholics who have seen a substantial expansion in subjective approaches to Church teaching in recent years, up to and including local bishops’ conferences opening the door for divorced-and-remarried Catholics to receive Communion while others struggle to maintain the Church’s longstanding discipline. Perhaps, given Haines’s dismissive tone, he has no concern that the catholicity of the Church is under fire.

As for the rest of Haines’s remarks on the appointment, they’re a mixed bag. Haines praises Ladaria’s theological works on the Holy Trinity without seeming to recognize that the Fourth Century has passed; Trinitarianism is not under fire. (Of course, a lack of sound catechesis on Trinitarian doctrine, not to mention Christology, is certainly one of innumerable ongoing problems in the Church today.) At this juncture in history, it is the Church’s moral teachings that are assaulted at every turn by both the secular world and within the Church herself. Discernment, thus far at least, has opened the door for doctrinal relativism. Is this a development Haines supports?

At the end of the day, it would behoove Haines and other supporters of Ladaria’s appointment to make perfectly clear why they are rejoicing over it. Certainly it is not because they believe Ladaria will correct confusion in the Church or try, as best they can, to move matters back to the status quo ante Vatican II. So where goes the Church now? What does the “Church of discernment” look like in concrete terms and how does Ladaria assist in this transition which many of the faithful worldwide find not only unsettling, but deeply damaging as well?

With the Fourth of July right around the corner, here’s something from the archives.

Tomorrow Christendom, the late Abbot Dom Gerard Calvet’s call for the reestablishment of Christian society, is a book seldom read by Catholics on this side of the pond. In fact, the English translation is now out of print. Even if it were widely available still, would we, good Catholics of America, have the cultural tools to comprehend its message? A resplendent glimpse of that message can be found in Calvet’s 1985 Pentecost sermon, what I and others have dubbed “The Illiberal Catholic Manifesto.” In it you will find a call to reclaim society not for free-market ideology or hawkish nationalism, but for our Lord Jesus Christ, King of all creation, rightful ruler of every man and nation. How foreign—how moth-eaten—that call must seem to us as we prepare to binge on beer and hotdogs before blowing off the tips of our fingers with illicitly acquired fireworks, all…